F. & D. Nos. 3051, 3150, 3073.
I. S. Nos 20556-b, 19169-c, 11513-c.	
Issued August 30,1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE   OF JUDGMENT  NO.  1600.
(Given pursuant to section 4 oŁ the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF HIGHLAND BRAND TOMATO?
CATSUP; MISBRANDING OF COMPOUND GLUCOSE APPLE JELLY;?
ADULTERATION OF WALDORF BRAND TOMATO CATSUP.
On November 27, 1911, the United States Attorney for the Eastern?
District of Michigan, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agri??
culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said dis??
trict informations against the Williams Bros. Co., a corporation,?
Detroit, Mich., alleging shipment by it, in violation of the Food and?
Drugs Act??
(1) On April 10, 1910, from the State of Michigan into the State of?
Oklahoma of a consignment of tomato catsup which was adulterated?
and misbranded. The product was labeled: "Highland Brand?
Tomato Catsup. From Tomatoes, parts of tomatoes, salt, sugar,?
vinegar and spices. Prepared with 1/10 of 1? benzoate of soda.?
The Williams Bros. Co.    Detroit, Mich."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of?
this Department showed the following results: Yeasts and spores,?
250 per one-sixtieth cmm; bacteria, 34,000,000 per cc; mold fila??
ments in about 66 per cent of the microscopic fields. Adulteration?
was charged in the information for the reason that the product con??
sisted in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed, or putrid vegetable?
substance, and further that it was made from low-grade stock con??
sisting principally of skins and cores of tomatoes and showed no evi??
dence of active spoilage when opened, indicating that it was filthy?
and decomposed when shipped in interstate commerce. Misbrand??
ing was alleged for the reason that the statements on the label were?
misleading and deceptive in that the statement "Tomato Catsup",?
followed by the words "from tomatoes, parts of tomatoes, salt,?
sugar, vinegar and spices", was misleading and deceptive in view of?
the fact that the product was not made wholly from the ingredients?
named but from low-grade stock, consisting principally of skins and?
cores. Misbranding was further alleged for the reason that the?
product was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the?
purchaser, being represented as a product made from the normal?
ingredients of tomato catsup, to wit, from the properly prepared pulp?
of clean, sound, fresh, ripe tomatoes, with spices and with or without?
permitted preservatives, when such was not the fact.
53667??No. 1600?12
(2)?On or about May 10, 1911, from the State of Michigan into the?
State of Georgia of a consignment of so-called compound glucose?
apple jelly which was misbranded. The product was labeled : " Com??
pound Glucose Apple Jelly?contains apple juice 45?, Glucose 55??
Trade Mark Made and guaranteed by the Williams Bros. Co., Detroit,?
Mich. U. S. A. * * * Serial No. 779." (Original case) "3 Doz.?
6 oz. Tumblers Glucose Apple "Jelly. Contains Apple Juice and?
Glucose. Trade Mark, The Williams Brothers Co., Detroit, Mich.?
U. S. A."
Analysis of a sample of this product by the Bureau of Cheniistry of?
this Department disclosed the presence of 0.45 per cent tartaric acid.?
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the information for the?
reason that the statements appearing on the labels regarding the sub??
stances and ingredients contained therein were false and misleading?
and deceptive to the purchaser thereof in that the said product con??
tained tartaric acid 0.45 per cent. Misbranding was further alleged?
for the reason that the label on the product was false and misleading,?
said product being labeled " Compound Glucose Apple Jelly?con??
tents apple juice 45?, Glucose 55?", thereby purporting to state?
all the ingredients of said product, whereas, in truth and in fact, it?
contained, in addition to these ingredients, an amount of tartaric?
acid, the presence of which was not stated on the label. Misbranding?
was further alleged for the reason that the statements in the labels?
deceived and misled the purchaser in that they purported to state all?
the ingredients of the product, whereas, in truth and in fact, it con??
tained, in addition to the ingredients stated on the label, an amount?
of tartaric acid, the presence of which was not declared thereon.
(3)?On October 12, 1910, from the State of Michigan into the State?
of Oklahoma of a consignment of so-called Waldorf Brand Tomato?
Catsup which was adulterated. The product was labeled: "Waldorf?
Brand Trade Mark. W. Bros. Co. Tomato Catsup Prepared with?
1/12 of 1? Benzoate of Soda. Contains tomatoes, sugar, salt, vine??
gar & spices.    Put up by the Williams Bros. Co.    Detroit, Mich."
Analysis of a sample of this product by the Bureau of Chemistry of?
this Department showed the following results: Yeasts and spores, 80?
per one-sixtieth cmm; bacteria, 200,000,000 per cc; mold filaments?
in 71 per cent of the fields. Adulteration of this product was. alleged?
in the information for the reason that it consisted in whole or in part?
of a filthy, decomposed substance.
On March 19, 1912, the defendant company appeared in court and?
entered a plea of nolo contendere, whereupon a fine of $1 was imposed?
in each of the three cases, with costs.
W. M. HAYS,
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.?
WASHINGTON, D. C, June 17, 1912.
1600